Biden's challenges to "unity"

[marshwiggle]

Biden's inauguration speech included much about "unifying" the country, which is quite common after a charged election. While there are always challenges to this, it seems to me that there are some primarily of the Democrats' own making. Here are a couple:

• Previous voter scolding - From Clinton's charge that half of Trump supporter's were "deplorables" (meaning close to 25% of the electorate), and Biden's charge that if you didn't vote for him, you weren't black (meaning about 12% of apparently black voters), the Democrats seem to direct much more ire at voters than Trump did. (Trump focused more on Democrat politicians than on voters themselves. Even in speaking against illegal immigrants, he avoided disparaging people who voted Democrat.) How many times have you heard the term "Trump's base" as opposed to Biden's (or Clinton's, or the Democrats' ) "base"? Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.   
• White privilege instead of social class - Given that white working class voters are one of the groups that Trump managed to attract, as long as the language  of "white privilege" insults people who are financially struggling in areas with high unemployment, it's hard to see how they are ever going to trust the politicians disparaging them.

If "unity" meanings anything other than "those idiots over there smartening up and agreeing with us", then it seems any substantial improvement will require some significant changes in attitude.

Are there areas where common ground can be found without these kinds of changes, that will resonate with a clear majority of voters? If so, what are they?

[Parasaurolophus]

I think you've fundamentally misunderstood Biden, what he stands for, and what he's saying. When he talks about unifying the country, he's not talking about appeasing everyday Republicans. He's talking about reaching out for support from Republican legislators. He has indicated any number of times that he is willing to compromise away the hopes, dreams, and legislative aims of people to his left (which is a lot of Democrats) in order to try to win Republican support. Indeed, that's what his whole political career has been.

[ciao_yall]

I read the WSJ and every day they have an online Question of the Day and highlight reader answers. For such a conservative readership, here are their top responses (emphasis mine):

====

In response to our question about the initiatives you are paying the closest attention to under the new Biden administration:

Judith Hurley, California
First and foremost we need to address climate change. I have no doubt that the planet will survive no matter what we do. But we need to think about whether we can survive on this planet if we keep ignoring the consequences of our actions.

Mike Hoecker, Wisconsin
Internationally, our approach to China's policies and aggression should rank as the No. 1 initiative, with rebuilding alliances with our allies a close second. Domestically, unifying the country will impact everything that we, as a country, endeavor to achieve and, therefore, should be the focus above all else.

Claudia Méndez Arriaza, Guatemala
Initiatives towards migration: Is there a fast initiative and exit to end the separation of families and the way immigrants are being detained?

Heather Grout, Maine
Everything from education reform to vaccination. Student-loan forgiveness and an adequate vaccination rollout will be critical to mending the mental and physical health of millions of Americans.
===

For such a so-called conservative paper, seems the readership is looking to Biden to be constructive around some key so-called liberal issues.

[dismalist]

Calls for "unity" are nothing more than babble. They're meant to invoke a result possible in the band of 40, from which we descend. "Unity" is meaningless, for impossible, in a society of 330 million. Disagreements will always be with us. A successful polity allows the disagreements.

[Ruralguy]

I think its all code for "lets get back to reasonable behavior and logic."  Of course Biden and his spokespeople and allies don't expect unanimity. They just want to compromise on large projects that are the least ideological, and maybe make a little headway on some of the things that are ideological.

[marshwiggle]

Calls for "unity" are nothing more than babble. They're meant to invoke a result possible in the band of 40, from which we descend. "Unity" is meaningless, for impossible, in a society of 330 million. Disagreements will always be with us. A successful polity allows the disagreements.

True, but as the posts above seem to suggest, the most likely way that will happen is that the new administration will just mostly avoid the most extreme progressive (woke, identitarian, etc.) agenda and focus on interests that are common but with less ideological baggage.

[mythbuster]

So Marhwiggle, do you think that focusing on common interests is bad? Because from where I sit it would be a huge achievement compared to where we have been.

[marshwiggle]

So Marhwiggle, do you think that focusing on common interests is bad? Because from where I sit it would be a huge achievement compared to where we have been.

Not at all. In fact, that's what I would hope they would do. The danger is getting carried away by too much wokeness which is very divisive. (Just as Trump was divisive by a lot of rhetoric which catered to people on the other end of the spectrum.)

[mythbuster]

The I say a big issue is the political mentality that if Biden/Dems "win" then the Republicans by default "lose". This mentality has killed any possibility of anything be declared common ground.

[mahagonny]

His own lack of imagination is one challenge. Whereas ever since the investigation into Russian interference in the election of 2016 wrapped up many republicans have been saying it was a mean-spirited witch hunt from the get-go, one could say 'regardless of what you think about what was learned or not learned, who acted improperly, or, as it turned out, did not, it was something that warranted being looked into' and some moderates would probably agree.

I think you've fundamentally misunderstood Biden, what he stands for, and what he's saying. When he talks about unifying the country, he's not talking about appeasing everyday Republicans. He's talking about reaching out for support from Republican legislators. He has indicated any number of times that he is willing to compromise away the hopes, dreams, and legislative aims of people to his left (which is a lot of Democrats) in order to try to win Republican support. Indeed, that's what his whole political career has been.

If you think Biden stands for anything you've probably misunderstood him.

[marshwiggle]

The I say a big issue is the political mentality that if Biden/Dems "win" then the Republicans by default "lose". This mentality has killed any possibility of anything be declared common ground.

This is partly a consequence of issues being labelled as either "left" or "right".

For instance, two issues are environmental sustainability (typically seen as "left") and economic sustainability (typically seen as "right"). But the reality is that an economy that relies on destroying the environment is unsustainable. Also, environmental measures that damage the economy are also unsustainable. The only "sustainable" measures have to take both into account. This is an example of why I'm a centrist. I've voted for the Green party for several elections because none of the the major parties here (in Canada) have taken environmental issues seriously. (By which I mean precisely the kind of long-term feasable change that includes a viable economy.)

[dismalist]

Calls for "unity" are nothing more than babble. They're meant to invoke a result possible in the band of 40, from which we descend. "Unity" is meaningless, for impossible, in a society of 330 million. Disagreements will always be with us. A successful polity allows the disagreements.

True, but as the posts above seem to suggest, the most likely way that will happen is that the new administration will just mostly avoid the most extreme progressive (woke, identitarian, etc.) agenda and focus on interests that are common but with less ideological baggage.

An administration being more centrist than its predecessor has nothing to do with unity. That move may be wise or unwise, real or imagined. In any case, we all will still have our differing opinions.

[marshwiggle]

Calls for "unity" are nothing more than babble. They're meant to invoke a result possible in the band of 40, from which we descend. "Unity" is meaningless, for impossible, in a society of 330 million. Disagreements will always be with us. A successful polity allows the disagreements.

True, but as the posts above seem to suggest, the most likely way that will happen is that the new administration will just mostly avoid the most extreme progressive (woke, identitarian, etc.) agenda and focus on interests that are common but with less ideological baggage.

An administration being more centrist than its predecessor has nothing to do with unity. That move may be wise or unwise, real or imagined. In any case, we all will still have our differing opinions.

Wouldn't collaborating on things we can agree on be a legitimate form of unity which doesn't have to pretend we agree on everything?

[dismalist]

Calls for "unity" are nothing more than babble. They're meant to invoke a result possible in the band of 40, from which we descend. "Unity" is meaningless, for impossible, in a society of 330 million. Disagreements will always be with us. A successful polity allows the disagreements.

True, but as the posts above seem to suggest, the most likely way that will happen is that the new administration will just mostly avoid the most extreme progressive (woke, identitarian, etc.) agenda and focus on interests that are common but with less ideological baggage.

An administration being more centrist than its predecessor has nothing to do with unity. That move may be wise or unwise, real or imagined. In any case, we all will still have our differing opinions.

Wouldn't collaborating on things we can agree on be a legitimate form of unity which doesn't have to pretend we agree on everything?

Of course people who have different opinions and interests can cooperate. We do it every time we go shopping. I wouldn't call that unity, though.

It is my guess, though I could be very wrong, that there is very little that is agreed upon in the US of A at this time.

[pgher]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/21/gop-response-biden-speech-unity/

It is wrong to say, "Conservatives are evil." It is right to say, "White supremacy is evil." It is incumbent on everyone to see the difference. If you see Biden's criticism of white supremacy as a personal attack, that's on you.